Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4


This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 07:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
The reason given for closure was: Successful.
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Prem Rawat 4

Involved parties

  1. Jayen466 (talk · contribs)
  2. Maelefique (talk · contribs)
  3. Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs)
  4. Rainer P. (talk · contribs)
  5. Savlonn (talk · contribs)
  6. Terrymacro (talk · contribs)
  7. Will Beback (talk · contribs)
  8. Zanthorp (talk · contribs)
  9. Sylviecyn (talk · contribs)
  10. John Brauns (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Note: Momento and Rumiton requested to join this mediation on July 22, 2009. This request was declined following discussion (archived here).

Articles involved

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

  • Latest MedCab case; [1]
  • Latest Arbitration case: [2]
  • Most recent mediation case: [3]
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

[From MedCab/2009-07-06/Prem Rawat]

There is a long running dispute over many issues concerning Prem Rawat and related articles. Rather than solving an individual dispute, long term mediation is needed to help users find consensus on matters as they arise.

The topic has been the subject of an RfAR and mediation in 2008, and a second RfAR in 2009 in which the ArbCom recommended further mediation.

Potential issues

  1. Reinstating undisputed edits
  2. Inclusion of the word "cult" in the intro to Prem Rawat
  3. The problem arising from having definitive primary sources ... which contradict ... all the established literature.
  4. The subject’s notability deriving from his relationship to an organisation.
  5. The functional (as opposed to notional) history of the organisations that support(ed) Hans Rawat, Satya Pal Rawat and Prem Pal Rawat.
  6. The inherent requirement to acknowledge the ‘cult’ appellation as it relates to both the Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital and Prem Rawat.
  7. Use of names besides "Prem Rawat" where appropriate, in particular, "Guru Maharaj Ji" when writing about the DLM and the 1970s.
  8. Making edits without consensus - should a formalised process of consensus be defined for the topics in question?

Disputed sources

  1. Andrea Cagan
  2. Randi
  3. Watts
  4. Use of Geaves as a source
  5. Use of Patrick, Conway and Siegelman as sources – are they among the "best and most reputable sources" as demanded by the arbcom ruling on Neutral_point_of_view_and_sourcing?

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Party agreement to mediation

All parties should indicate below whether they agree to participate in this mediation or not. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the request will be declined. Please indicate that you agree by adding "Agree. ~~~~" (or Disagree if you do not) below. Comments should be directed to the talk page.
  1. Agree. Savlonn (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Terry Macro (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. --JN466 02:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. -- Sylviecyn (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree. --John Brauns (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree. --Rainer P. (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. opting out. --Zanthorp (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Committee will accept or decline this request in due course. Mediators may also add queries for the parties or other remarks or suggestions. These may replied to briefly by means of an indented post underneath, or at length on the mediation talk page.
Accept.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mediators: Steve Crossin (talk), Sunray (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat4
Marcações: